WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected maps drawn by a lower court for use in Texas’ U.S. House and state legislative races, dealing a blow Friday to Democrats and minority groups and possibly triggering another delay in the state’s primaries.

Democrats and minority groups had challenged the maps that the Republican-controlled Legislature proposed for use in this year’s U.S. House and state House and Senate contests. And a federal court in San Antonio had responded by drawing alternative maps. But the Supreme Court said that court didn’t give enough deference to the Legislature’s plan, which is the subject of a separate federal trial.

Both sides claimed victory of sorts — Republicans because the justices rejected court-drawn maps that could have meant big gains for Democrats, and Democrats and their allies because the justices also refused to let the state hold elections using maps that the plaintiffs call deeply flawed and unfair.

“Because it is unclear whether the … [court in San Antonio] followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated,” the high court wrote in an unsigned, unanimous 11-page ruling.

The justices acted with unusual speed, ruling just 11 days after hearing arguments.

They sent the case back to San Antonio. But the lower federal court seemed in no huge hurry. Hours after receiving the Supreme Court rebuke, the judges set a Feb. 1 date for lawyers on both sides to update them on the case.

That delay could make it impossible to hold primaries on April 3 as planned. They’ve been delayed once already.

“The Supreme Court has just created more havoc,” said Dallas County Democratic chairwoman Darlene Ewing. But, she added, “I have faith in the San Antonio panel.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, said the ruling confirmed the state’s contention “that the San Antonio court drew illegal maps” and that courts “must give deference to elected leaders of this state.”

Jose Garza, a San Antonio attorney who argued the case at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, saw good and bad news in the high court’s ruling. It would have been devastating had the Supreme Court ratified the Legislature-drawn maps, he said, though he was disappointed that the justices ordered the lower court to use the Legislature’s maps as benchmarks in fixing any perceived flaws.

“That, to me, is a step back in the importance of the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

The redistricting fight is proceeding on dual legal tracks. A trial began Tuesday in Washington before another three-judge panel to determine whether the Legislature-drawn maps pass muster. Under the federal Voting Rights Act, Texas cannot enact even a minor change in its election rules without approval, known as “pre-clearance.” Closing arguments are scheduled for Feb. 3.

Hispanic growth

The vast majority of Texas’ torrid population growth during the last decade — 4.3 million new residents — came from Hispanics.

Texas earned four new U.S. House seats as a result of its surge. But the Legislature-drawn congressional map allowed for no new minority-controlled seats. The court-drawn map could have meant three.

At the state House level, the court-drawn map created at least four Dallas County seats that Democrats would have been likely to win.

Abbott and other Texas Republican officials argued that protecting incumbents, including several Hispanic Republicans who won office in 2010, is a perfectly lawful goal of redistricting.

The Supreme Court agreed that the Legislature’s map gave short shrift to minorities, though it left it for lower courts to decide if there were violations of the Voting Rights Act. But the justices said the court in San Antonio had overstepped its authority by apparently setting out to “create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth” in Tarrant County.

That referred to the court-drawn 33rd Congressional District, where state Rep. Marc Veasey and Fort Worth City Council member Kathleen Hicks have been preparing for a Democratic primary battle.

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that the lower court’s plan, or something similar, could still pass muster — if the judges can justify the changes.

“They’ve got to start with the Legislature’s maps, something they didn’t do before,” said Hans von Spakovsky, an election law expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who handled voting rights issues in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department. “They have to explain what violation they see. … Then you can change it.”

Texas’ main victory, he said, came from the high court’s agreement that a lower court cannot simply ignore Legislature-drawn maps, even if those maps haven’t yet won federal approval.

Uncertainty reigns

For now, candidates for congressional and legislative offices aren’t sure which districts they live in. State and local election officials can’t prepare ballots.

And because of logistical deadlines, an April 3 primary looks increasingly unlikely. Overseas ballots must be mailed 45 days before the primary. Before that, election officials will need to hold ballot placement drawings and print ballots.

“We all were looking for a timely ruling from the Supreme Court. We got that,” said state GOP spokesman Chris Elam. “Now it’s incumbent on the San Antonio court to move quickly.”

Abbott filed a motion late Friday asking the San Antonio court to move more quickly than the Feb. 1 hearing.

Some advocates, though, suggested that it might be better for the San Antonio panel to wait for a ruling on “preclearance” from the trial under way in Washington.

“I’ll be surprised if they don’t wait,” said Democratic strategist Matt Angle. “You can get the map right. That primary date should be secondary to fair and legal maps.”

Former Dallas County Republican chairman Jonathan Neerman said it might make sense to go ahead with an April 3 primary for president and statewide and local offices unaffected by the redistricting fight.

“The court is going to want to get it right,” Neerman said. “There’s a good chance the deadline is going to be pushed. Just split the primary.”

State and local officials, though, note that that’s a much costlier option.

Minority advocates and Democrats rejected assertions that the ruling represented a win for the state and for Republicans. They argued that the Supreme Court could have ratified the Legislature-drawn maps — but pointedly did not.

“The most important thing for us is to make sure Texas does not ram its discriminatory plans through,” said Nina Perales, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

But Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, called the ruling “a tragedy” for fairness that underscores the stakes in the trial in Washington, at which she testified earlier this week.

Staff writer Sean Collins Walsh contributed to this report.

tgillman@dallasnews.com; gjeffers@dallasnews.com

WHAT’S NEXT

The ball’s in 2 courts

San Antonio court: The judges to whom the Supreme Court sent the case back set a new hearing for Feb. 1, though some officials want it held sooner.

D.C. trial continues: A Washington court continues to hear testimony on whether political maps approved by the Legislature pass legal muster. That trial is set to wrap up Feb. 3.

Primary date: It’s currently April 3, but party and election officials see that as increasingly unlikely. One option might be to have presidential, statewide and local elections then and primaries for Congress and the Legislature later, though that would be more expensive.